Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
U.S. International Food Assistance
Report
Fiscal Year 2013
2
Cover Photograph: Transportation of Food Aid in Burkina Faso (UN World Food Program)
This report may be found online:
USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse
Telephone: 202.712.0579
URL: dec.usaid.gov, www.usaid.gov, and at www.fas.usda.gov
3
Executive Summary
The annual U.S. International Food Assistance Report is required by Section 407 of the
Food for Peace Act, as amended by Section 3018 of the 2008 Farm Bill. This report on U.S.
government food assistance is written and submitted to the U.S. Congress by USAID, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
In fiscal year (FY) 2013, the U.S. Government provided $1.7 billion of food aid, or1.4
million metric tons of food, to a total of more than 46.2 million beneficiaries in 56 countries.
Food assistance is a major component of the President’s global hunger and food security
initiative, Feed the Future. U.S. food assistance programs provide responses to emergency and
non-emergency food needs. The food assistance programs discussed in this report include the
following:
The Title II Food for Peace program responds to emergency needs such as
disasters and crises, and targets the underlying causes of hunger and malnutrition
through development food assistance programs.
The Food for Progress program responds to non-emergency food aid situations
by supporting agricultural value chain development, expanding revenue and
production capacity, and increasing incomes in food-insecure countries.
The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
program responds to non-emergency food aid needs by supporting education
and nutrition for school children, particularly girls, expectant mothers and
infants.
Countries in Africa and South and Central Asia together total more than 90 percent of
the aid provided through U.S. government food aid programs. African countries received 79
percent of all tonnage provided under food aid programs. More than 30 awardees implemented
U.S. government food assistance programs in FY 2013.
4
Contents
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 6
Overview of FY 2013 U.S. Government Food Aid ..................................................................................... 7
II. Latest Developments for FY 2013 ........................................................................................................... 11
A. Resilience ....................................................................................................................................... 11
B. Update on Food Products ................................................................................................................... 12
C. Micronutrient-Fortified Food Aid Products Pilot (MFFAPP) ............................................................... 14
Final MFFAPP Results in Guatemala
………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 15
Final MFFAPP Results from the First Grant in Guinea-Bissau ..................................................................... 15
D. Incorporating Food Aid into Feed the Future ..................................................................................... 16
E. Changes in Cargo Preference Reimbursements .................................................................................. 18
F. Trends in Global Food Assistance........................................................................................................ 19
G. Cost Per Ration Analysis and Counting Beneficiaries ......................................................................... 20
III. Regional Highlights ................................................................................................................................. 21
A. Sub-Saharan Africa ......................................................................................................................... 21
USDA Liberia, Revival of Cocoa Production for Small Farmers .................................................................. 21
USAID Madagascar, Gaining Ground on Nutrition and Resilience Building .................................................. 22
USAID Malawi, Farmers and Savings Groups Thrive Despite Shocks .......................................................... 23
USDA Mozambique, Smallholders Key to Poultry Sector Gains ................................................................. 24
USDA Senegal, Increasing Agricultural Productivity and New Markets ........................................................ 25
USAID Uganda, Linking Farmers to Markets ............................................................................................. 27
B. Asia and the Pacific ............................................................................................................................ 28
USAID Bangladesh, Empowering Women ................................................................................................. 28
USDA Pakistan, Improving Girls’ Education and Health ............................................................................. 29
USDA Philippines, Smallholder Production and Processing of Coffee and Cocoa ......................................... 30
C. The Americas ....................................................................................................................................... 31
USDA Honduras, Improving Education in the Western Highlands .............................................................. 31
5
USAID Haiti, Reducing Malnutrition ………………………………………………………………………......32
IV. Farmer to Farmer ................................................................................................................................... 34
V. Appendices ............................................................................................................................................. 36
A. Legislative Framework ................................................................................................................... 36
U.S. International Food Assistance ......................................................................................................... 36
B. List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... 38
C. List of Awardees ............................................................................................................................. 39
D. USG Food Assistance Graphs ......................................................................................................... 40
E. USAID Title II Emergency Activities: Summary Budget, Commodity, Beneficiaries, and Tonnage—
Fiscal Year 2013 ............................................................................................................................. 43
F. USAID Title II Development Activities: Summary Budget, Commodity, Beneficiaries, and
Tonnage—Fiscal Year 2013 ............................................................................................................ 47
G. USDA CCC Funded Food for Progress Grants Fiscal Year 2013 ...................................................... 51
I. McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program Grants
Fiscal Year 2013 ............................................................................................................................. 53
J. Food for Peace Title II Congressional Mandates—Fiscal Year 2013 .................................................... 55
K. Countries with U.S. International Food Assistance Programs —Fiscal Year 2013 .............................. 56
6
I. Introduction
U.S. Government (USG) international food assistance efforts are an expression of the
compassion and good will of the American people and a visible example of Americans’
commitment to helping those in need. More than 3 billion people have been reached through
these programs since 1954.
The United States has long understood that reducing hunger and poverty contributes to
more stable societies. People who are increasingly free from the debilitating effects of hunger
and disease are better able to meet their own needs, build assets, develop vibrant local and
national economies, and become part of the global marketplace. U.S. food and agricultural
assistance policies have helped to engage recipient countries not only by delivering food
assistance, but also by fostering stronger internal production capacity and infrastructure,
generating employment, boosting revenue, and developing new markets and productive
economic partnerships.
Food assistance continues to evolve in the context of alleviating hunger, providing better
food security, helping communities develop resilience to withstand external stressors and
shocks, and developing communities’ access to productive livelihoods and sustainable sources of
food. Today, it is a major component of the President’s global hunger and food security
initiative, Feed the Future. Food assistance results are being incorporated into the Feed the
Future monitoring and reporting system.
U.S. food assistance programs provide responses to emergency and non-emergency
food needs. The Title II Food for Peace program is the key program that responds to
emergency needs such as disasters and crises. USDA’s Food for Progress (FFPr) program
responds to non-emergency food aid situations by supporting agricultural value chain
development, expanding revenue and production capacity, and increasing incomes in food-
insecure countries. The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
(McGovern-Dole) program also responds to non-emergency food aid needs by supporting
education and nutrition for school children, particularly girls, expectant mothers and infants.
USDA interventions are intended to produce sustainable income generation and long-term,
multi-generational benefits.
U.S. food assistance programs are evolving to provide more effective and efficient
responses to vulnerable people. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, President Obama proposed common
sense reforms to reach millions more hungry people around the world by using the same level
of resources more flexibly and efficiently. The proposal aimed to expand programming that
helps farmers closer to the crisis provide commodities for food programs through “local and
regional procurement” and helps beneficiaries access more local, healthful foods by providing
them with a targeted cash transfer or food voucher. Not all of the proposed reforms were
7
adopted, however the Agricultural Act of 2014 did include significant reforms to improve the
flexibility and effectiveness of the Food for Peace program.
The Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) includes an increase in Section 202(e)
funding from 13 to 20 percent, as well as an expanded definition of the type of activities USAID
can fund through Section 202(e). This means USAID will be able to directly fund development
activities previously funded by monetization, thereby increasing the efficiency and effectiveness
of our programs. These reforms will also allow the agency to use a modest amount of
resources for Local and Regional Purchase (LRP), food vouchers and cash transfers to assist in
establishing Food for Peace programs or enhancing existing programs.
Additionally, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 provided $35 million in
flexibility for development food aid programs for USAID through Section 202(e). These
combined reforms from the Agricultural Act of 2014 and the Consolidated Appropriations Act
of 2014 mean USAID can reach an additional 800,000 people with the same resources.
The 2014 Farm Bill also authorized a Local and Regional Procurement program to be
administered by USDA. If funded through appropriations, the program would use products
grown in recipient or nearby countries and can be used to complement the McGovern-Dole
International School Feeding Program.
The Administration will continue to work with appropriators and authorizers to seek
reforms that will allow USAID and USDA to reach even more beneficiaries with the best
possible tool for each situation and assure the United States sustains its global leadership role in
food assistance.
Overview of FY 2013 U.S. Government Food Aid
In FY 2013, the USG provided $1.7 billion of food aid, or1.4million metric tons (MT) of
food, to a total of more than 46.2 million beneficiaries1 in 56 countries. The following summary
provides the volume and cost of each U.S. food aid program for FY 2013.
1USAID reports on both direct and indirect beneficiaries. USAID defines direct beneficiaries as those who come into direct contact with its
program interventions. Indirect beneficiaries are those who benefit indirectly from the goods and services provided to the direct beneficiaries. For example, the head of household might be the direct beneficiary but the dependent family members are considered indirect beneficiaries.
USDA’s Food for Progress reports on both direct and indirect beneficiaries and USDA’s McGovern-Dole reports only on direct beneficiaries. USDA defines direct beneficiaries as those who come into direct contact with the set of interventions (goods or services) provided by the program in each technical area or program activity. Individuals who receive training or benefit from program-supported technical assistance or service provision are considered direct beneficiaries, as are those who receive a ration or another type of good. Indirect beneficiaries are those
who benefit indirectly from the goods and services provided to the direct beneficiaries (e.g., families of producers).
8
Table 1: Overview of USG Food Aid Programs (Commodities and Cost)
PROGRAM2 Commodities
(Metric Tons)
TOTAL COST
($, million)
Food for Progress Title I ---- ----
Food for Peace Title II (Emergency,
Development, IFRP) 1,111,281 $1,354.6
Food for Development Title III ---- ----
Farmer-to-Farmer Program Title V ---- 10
Food for Progress 160,120 149.6
McGovern-Dole International Food for
Education and Child Nutrition 90,840 183.5
Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust ---- ----
GRAND TOTAL 1,362,241 $1,697.7
Countries in Africa and South and Central Asia together total more than 90 percent of
the aid provided through USG food aid programs. African countries drew the lion’s share,
receiving 79 percent of all tonnage provided under food aid programs. Please refer to the
Appendices for a breakdown of food assistance by region and individual program.
Wheat and wheat products represented almost half the commodities that were
programmed and monetized in FY 2013. Grains, blended products and fortified products were
about one-quarter of the products programmed in FY 2013. Commodities were purchased
from producers in more than 25 states in the United States. Please refer to Appendix D for a
breakdown of commodity mix by type and by USAID and USDA programs.
USAID in FY 2013
In FY 2013, USAID provided more than 1.1 million MT of Title II assistance, valued at
$1.35 billion, to more than 35 million beneficiaries in 46 countries. Seventy-seven percent of
Title II funding went towards emergency response in 33 countries and 23 percent was for
development programming in 19 countries. When combined with the International Disaster
Assistance (IDA) funds provided to Office of Food for Peace (FFP) for emergency response,
USAID reached more than 45 million people in 55 countries with food assistance.
USAID’s largest emergency response in FY 2013 was for the ongoing crisis in Syria,
assisting internally displaced persons and other affected groups inside Syria and refugees in five
neighboring countries. The situation grew steadily worse over the course of the year and by the
2For the USDA programs mentioned in this report, USDA is only reporting on agreements signed in FY 2013. USAID is reporting on all costs
incurred in FY 2013 from new and ongoing emergency and development programs.
9
end of FY 2013 an estimated 9.3 million Syrians were in need of some form of humanitarian
assistance, including 2.2 million Syrians who had fled to neighboring Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey,
Iraq and Egypt.
The bulk of the U.S. assistance was provided through the IDA account. The United
States provided a total of $362.5 million for the refugee and internal Syria response to support
food vouchers, debit cards for food purchase and locally/regionally purchased commodities.
While a small amount of Title II resources were used—$23.6 million—import constraints,
concerns that the Syrian government could block or tamper with U.S. goods, and fears that
recipients or aid workers might face security threats if found using U.S. food has limited its use.
Cost and appropriateness are also factors since canned goods and processed commodities
make up part of the monthly family rations. Inside Syria, USAID partners are putting locally and
regionally procured foods into easily managed family size packs for rapid distribution.
Refugees are now served exclusively through a debit card or paper vouchers, which
they receive on a monthly basis to buy their own food in local supermarkets. Most of the
refugees are urban based in relatively better off countries with well-functioning market
economies. According to the UN World Food Program (WFP), in Jordan alone the refugee
program has injected $100 million into the national economy. Jordanian stores participating in
the voucher program are seeing increased sales of 10-20 percent.
While all neighboring countries continue to suffer from the destabilizing effects of the
war, the donor effort to harness local economies as mentioned above in Jordan for the
response has been greatly appreciated. The voucher and debit cards have also significantly
reduced overall costs from the “hot meal” model initially undertaken and allow the refugees to
regain a sense of normalcy by buying and cooking foods similar to what they ate at home. In the
case of Turkey and Jordan, the program also takes full advantage of well-established financial
infrastructure and allows WFP to closely monitor assistance by tracking food prices, spending
patterns, and inventory levels in stores.
The Syrian conflict was just one of four Level 3 emergencies WFP responded to in
calendar year 2013 (what WFP classifies as large corporate scale emergencies, where
emergency response operations require mobilization of WFP global response capabilities in
support of the relevant country or regional offices). USAID’s large scale responses for the
Philippines, South Sudan and Central African Republic began in early FY 2014, and will be
discussed in the FY 2014 International Food Assistance Report. Other top Title II recipient
countries included Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan and Chad, where
beneficiaries were impacted by conflict and drought.
USAID began three new development (non-emergency) food assistance programs in
FY 2013 – one in Haiti and two in Zimbabwe. With these new programs, USAID’s development
food assistance portfolio amounted to $354.8 million in 19 countries for FY 2013. About
10
$299.8 million was provided through Title II and an additional $55 million was provided in
Community Development Funds (CDF). The CDF monies supported nine programs in Feed the
Future focus countries. The goal of development food assistance programs is to reduce food
insecurity among vulnerable groups. The programs are designed to improve food access and
incomes through agriculture and other livelihoods initiatives; combat undernutrition, especially
for children under 2 years and pregnant and lactating women; and mitigate disaster impact
through early warning and community preparedness activities. Food assistance programs are
increasingly associated with USAID’s efforts to promote resilience among populations facing
chronic poverty and recurrent crises.
As mandated by the Food for Peace Act, USAID’s International Food Relief Partnership
(IFRP) program continued in FY 2013, providing $9 million in small grants to predominantly
faith-based groups working on nutritional support programs. These grants supported the
distribution of a ready-to-use supplementary food (RUSF) and a dried soup mix. The RUSF was
used to complement breastfeeding for children ages 6-24 months to promote their physical and
cognitive growth, given the lack of key micronutrients in impoverished children of this age.
Other targeted groups included pregnant and lactating women, HIV/AIDS-affected individuals
and other vulnerable groups living in institutional settings.
Finally, the Title V Farmer-to-Farmer program continued to bring American know-how
to farmers in 48 countries through technical assistance and field exchanges.
USDA in FY 2013
USDA provided nearly 250,000 MT of commodities, totaling $333 million in food aid in
FY 2013 through the Food for Progress (FFPr) and McGovern-Dole programs. Funding from
USDA was used by 11 organizations to implement agricultural development, trade capacity
building, and school feeding programs. More than 10.5 million people in 18 countries benefitted
from USDA food aid.
USDA’s McGovern-Dole program provided $184 million of support to 6.8 million
recipients in 11 countries. By providing school meals in concert with teacher training, school
supplies, learning materials, school infrastructure and related support, McGovern-Dole projects
boost school enrollment and children’s academic performance. At the same time, the program
also addresses the issue of early childhood health and pre-school preparedness, by offering
nutrition programs for pregnant and nursing women, infants, and preschoolers. Supporting
healthy families and improving access to education helps to combat the root causes of poverty
and fosters sustainable economic growth in developing nations. Nine countries in Africa
received over 60 percent of the assistance. With funding awarded in FY 2011 and FY 2012 from
the McGovern-Dole program, the Micronutrient-Fortified Food Aid Products Pilot (MFFAPP)
continued its activities in five countries during FY 2013.
11
FFPr assists developing countries and emerging democracies that are expanding private
enterprise by increasing productivity and markets in the agricultural sector. FFPr is an
important tool in the U.S. effort to support sustainable agricultural production, develop new
and emerging markets, and promote agricultural trade. The program helps countries increase
the value and output of the agricultural economy, expand free enterprise and build agricultural
trade capacity. U.S. agricultural commodities donated to recipient countries are sold on the
local market and the proceeds are used to support agricultural, economic or infrastructure
development programs. In FY 2013, the FFPr provided $149.6 million in food aid grants to over
3.6 million people in 12 countries. Six countries in Africa received over 60 percent of the
assistance. Three direct government-to-government agreements were in place. The
governments of Mauritania, Guatemala, and Jordan participated in programs emphasizing
agricultural technical infrastructure and building capacity for disseminating agricultural
knowledge to farmers.
II. Latest Developments for FY 2013
A. Resilience
In late 2011 and early 2012, building resilience to recurrent crises emerged as a shared,
cross-bureau priority within USAID. This was prompted by large-scale humanitarian
emergencies in the Horn of Africa and Sahel and the collective recognition by USAID, other
donors, governments, regional institutions, and a wide array of humanitarian and development
partners that continuing to treat recurrent crises as acute emergencies—and chronic
vulnerability as a perpetual humanitarian risk—is extremely costly. This cost includes loss of life,
livelihoods, dignity and aspiration, the negative impact on national and regional economies and
the economic cost of recurrent, large-scale humanitarian response.
Resilience efforts leverage the collective strengths of FFP, the Office of U.S. Foreign
Disaster Assistance (OFDA), the Bureau for Food Security (BFS), Global Health, and the
Bureau for Economic Growth, Education and Environment, offering the potential of integrating
a variety of resource streams to more effectively tackle the underlying causes of chronic
vulnerability, hunger and poverty, and ultimately reducing what are now predictable
requirements for international humanitarian assistance. Title II food assistance, supported by
Community Development Funds, provides a foundation for this broader integration of
resources, and even where other resource streams are not yet available, FFP and its partners
are increasingly applying a resilience “lens” to the design of both emergency and development
food assistance activities.
12
In 2013, USAID’s flagship resilience efforts in the drylands of Ethiopia, Kenya and
Somalia reached over 3.4 million people through sequenced, layered and integrated investments
aimed at addressing the underlying causes of recurrent crisis by reducing and managing risk,
building adaptive capacity and facilitating inclusive growth. The full return on these recent
investments has yet to be realized. However, recent research in Kenya and Ethiopia by the
United Kingdom’s Department for International Development conservatively estimates that
every $1 invested in resilience in the drylands over the long-term yields $2.90 in avoided aid,
animal losses and development benefits.
In Ethiopia, USAID’s resilience efforts build on a foundation established by the national
Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP). The PSNP is a large-scale public works initiative
supported by USAID and other donor agencies that provides 7 million people with food and
cash transfers in exchange for work to help meet immediate food security needs while
rehabilitating the natural resource base and building the infrastructure required for rural
transformation. The PSNP, which helped to prevent a more serious crisis during the Horn’s
2011 drought, continues to be a resilience “learning-lab” for USAID.
In addition to the progress made in the Horn of Africa, in 2013 efforts to build
resilience to recurrent crisis were expanded to the Sahel. These included the process of joint
problem analysis and program design that characterizes USAID’s approach to resilience
programming, resulting in a set of sequenced, layered and integrated investments in Niger and
Burkina Faso that build on foundational FFP development programs and OFDA disaster risk
reduction investments. Interventions will include food transfers (food, cash, or vouchers) for
the development of community assets capable of reducing future vulnerability (land
regeneration, reforestation, water development); investments in social capital (basic and
vocational education, nutrition and family planning); and increased economic opportunities
(livelihood diversification, value chain development, and market facilitation).The programs will
reach an estimated 1.9 million people in 2014.
Beyond Africa, building resilience is also an organizing concept and goal in the recently
developed USAID Mission Country Development and Cooperation Strategies for Nepal and
Yemen, and a new FFP community resilience program is envisioned for Nepal in FY 2015.
A common set of measures for resilience is in development by a global group of
stakeholders, and will include reductions in humanitarian needs, depth of poverty, moderate to
severe hunger, and global acute malnutrition.
B. Update on Food Products
USAID, in partnership with USDA, continues to update the in-kind food aid basket, in
line with recommendations from the Food Aid Quality Review issued in 2011. The Food Aid Quality
Review identifies cost effective ways to better match the nutritional quality of U.S. food aid with
13
the nutritional requirements of vulnerable populations overseas and standardizes commodity
specifications used in food aid. In FY 2013, a new product called Super Cereal Plus (SC+) was in
the development process and will be procured in FY 2014. This product combines corn soy
blend (CSB) and vegetable oil, and includes animal protein to help treat and prevent the relapse
of moderate acute malnutrition (MAM).
USDA is working with USAID to review the quality and nutritional content of the in-
kind food aid basket through its MFFAPP (see next section). USDA has also partnered with
USAID in the creation of a new Interagency Food Aid Committee. The scope of this
committee is to provide a “one-stop shop” for whole-of-government technical actions in food
aid, and to interface with industry and implementing partners. In addition to product
development and testing, this interagency committee has recently partnered with USDA’s Farm
Service Agency to explore product harmonization and procurement issues, including packaging,
best if used by dates, independent third party testing and quality audits and inspections. As
these review mechanisms move forward, USDA and USAID will continue working together in
the final development of protocols designed to assess the feasibility of these new products and
processes in the field.
In FY 2013, USAID, through UNICEF, programmed over 3,700 MT of ready-to-use
therapeutic food (RUTF) to respond to emergency nutrition needs in Afghanistan, Angola,
Burundi, Pakistan, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen. USAID also made its first procurement of
200 MT of ready-to-use supplementary food (RUSF) for use by WFP in Somalia to prevent
moderate acute malnutrition. USAID has set as a goal to meet 10 percent of UNICEF’s global
requirement for RUTF (3,200 tons in FY 2013; 4,800 tons in FY 2014) and 10 percent of WFP’s
global requirement for RUSF (200 tons in FY 2013; 4,400 tons in FY 2014). In addition, USAID
provided 270 MT of emergency food bars to WFP to assist Syrian refugees and food insecure
populations in Mali.
Since the launch of the food aid quality review, USAID has held over 40 consultations
with partners to advance its agenda to assure vulnerable groups receive the most appropriate,
nutritious food. USAID’s food technologist and nutrition staff have visited supplier production
facilities, UN headquarter offices and warehousing facilities, and partner field sites to observe
how the new food products are being stored and distributed. It has also convened regular
meetings of involved stakeholders; intensive discussions are yielding consensus on how best to
harmonize product specifications and package sizes to create efficiencies and facilitate
production and distribution. This should facilitate production and programming in the coming
years.
Two new research efforts got underway this year in collaboration with Tufts University
and WFP. Activities in Malawi will yield information on whether improved packaging and
instruction to families can assure the proper blending of oil and dried blended foods as
14
recommended in the Food Aid Quality Review. In Sierra Leone, research will measure the cost-
effectiveness and impact of different specialized food commodities—CSB+ and oil, RUSF, SC+
and CSB14 and oil—on MAM in children 6-23 months. The overall goal of both research
initiatives is to determine effective, alternative techniques to treat MAM and ultimately decrease
mortality rates.
FY 2013 interim results from USAID research in Burundi and Guatemala on preventing
malnutrition in children under 2 provide some useful process data. For example, in
Guatemala the use of family rations as an incentive for participation is critical to drawing
women into health centers to access the nutrition products for themselves and their babies.
Final results will be available in FY 2016.
C. Micronutrient-Fortified Food Aid Products Pilot
In FY 2013, USDA continued implementation of the Micronutrient-Fortified Food Aid
Products Pilot (MFFAPP) program, which is administered through the McGovern-Dole
program. The pilot projects address micronutrient deficiencies in specific populations served by
the McGovern-Dole program by testing the delivery and use of vitamin and mineral-enriched
food. Populations targeted by the pilot program include school-aged children, children under 5
years of age, pregnant and lactating mothers, and infants. The fortified foods are developed in
the United States, using domestically grown commodities.
Each MFFAPP project involves medical evaluations and biochemical research to evaluate
the effectiveness of the fortified food product in improving baseline nutritional status.
Additionally, the projects evaluate food products for cultural acceptability and ease of use in
different settings such as homes, institutions, and schools. During FY 2011 and FY 2012, $10
million in MFFAPP grants were awarded to organizations to develop and field-test
micronutrient-fortified products.
USDA implemented six grant agreements with five organizations in Guatemala, Guinea-
Bissau (where two grants were awarded), Haiti, Cambodia and Tanzania. During 2013, two
organizations completed projects and submitted final, third-party evaluations. Three projects
completed distribution of the food aid products and final evaluations are underway. The sixth
project will be completed by June 2016.
Table 2: MFFAPP Grant Agreements in FY 2013
Country Organization Product Value
($,
Million)
Final Evaluation
Submission
Date
Guatemala Hormel Food Sales Poultry-based spread Spammy 0.13 September 2013
Guinea-Bissau International Ready-to-use, Supplementary 1.4 October 2013
15
(First Grant) Partnership for
Human
Development, Inc.
Dairy Paste
Guinea-Bissau
(Second Grant)
International
Partnership for
Human
Development, Inc.
Ready-to-use, Supplementary
Dairy Paste
1.1 March 2014
Haiti Meds & Food for
Kids
Lipid-based Vita Mamba 1.0 March 2014
Cambodia Program for
Appropriate
Technology in Health
Ultra-Rice 2.8 October 2014
Tanzania Kansas State
University
Three Fortified Blended Foods:
sorghum-soybean, sorghum-
cowpea and corn-soy blends
5.1 June 2016
Final MFFAPP Results in Guatemala
As a result of the intake of the poultry-based spread Spammy in the project conducted
by Hormel Food Sales (HFS), the evaluators found reductions in underweight children,
improvements in iron levels, reductions in the number of days of absence due to illness,
significant increases of Vitamins D and B12 blood levels and positive correlations between
Vitamin D, ferritin and gains in cognitive scores. HFS has submitted an informational package to
USDA and USAID that would allow the agencies to consider the use of Spammy as a
commodity option in other food aid programs.
Final MFFAPP Results from the First Grant in Guinea-Bissau
International Partnership for Human Development (IPHD) fed a micro-nutrient fortified
dairy paste to primary school students as a supplement to their daily caloric intake. At the
conclusion of the project, the evaluator found slight improvements in height and weight
measurements associated with the feeding of the dairy paste. However, the product did not
improve iron and Vitamin A levels in the treatment group as expected.
USDA provides reports on the status of MFFAPP twice a year. The most recent report
was provided in April 2014, to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies and the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies.
16
D. Incorporating Food Aid into Feed the Future
In setting its annual priorities for the FFPr and the McGovern-Dole programs, USDA
consults with USAID and other agencies to review country investment plans to identify
potential interventions that would contribute to Feed the Future efforts to improve food
security. Increasing FFPr and McGovern-Dole support for Feed the Future efforts has been a
key accomplishment over the past 2 years.
USDA’s FFPr and McGovern-Dole program activities are being implemented in a
number of Feed the Future and Food for Peace countries. Food for Peace development food
assistance programs often provide the foundation on which larger Feed the Future efforts are
built. USDA currently has 33 active FFPr agreements supporting Feed the Future with a total
value of over $500 million. For example, in Honduras, women entrepreneurs have been able to
access credit as a result of the USDA program and in Bangladesh USDA is training farmers in
new technologies to help them cultivate higher-value crops. Please see Table 3, which identifies
the Feed the Future countries in which USDA and USAID Title II programs are working.
Table 3: USDA and USAID Food Assistance Operations in Feed the Future Countries in
FY 2013
Region/Country Food for Progress McGovern-Dole Food for Peace
Asia
Bangladesh
Cambodia
Nepal
Philippines
Timor-Leste
Latin America/Caribbean
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
East Africa
Ethiopia
Kenya
South Sudan
Tanzania
Uganda
Southern Africa
Burundi
Democratic Republic of the
Congo
Madagascar
Malawi
Mozambique
Zimbabwe
West Africa
Burkina Faso
Chad
Liberia
Mali
Mauritania
Niger
17
Region/Country Food for Progress McGovern-Dole Food for Peace
Senegal
Sierra Leone
The investment of USDA Programs in Feed the Future-focused countries is summarized below.
Table 4: Overview of USDA Food Assistance to Feed the Future Countries
USDA Food for Progress USDA McGovern-Dole Food for
Education
Quantity of Commodities
Programmed in FY2013
157,720 MT 78,993 MT
Value of Commodities
Programmed in FY 2013
$92.9 million $76.4 million
Combined Value of Grants
reported on Feed the Future
during FY 2013
$510.85 million $525.4 million
Feed the Future’s progress is captured by Feed the Future Monitoring System indicators.
The table below shows early data on how USAID Title II and USDA programs contribute to the
larger Feed the Future results in the areas of agriculture and food security.
Table 5: USAID and USDA Food Assistance Contributions to Feed the Future Results in
Agriculture and Food Security in FY 2013
FEED THE FUTURE INDICATOR
Title II3
Food for
Progress
McGovern
Dole
4.5(2): Number of jobs attributed to Feed the Future
implementation
2,420
3.3.3(15): Number of USG social assistance beneficiaries
participating in productive safety nets
284,7464 2,514,093
4.5.2(2): Number of hectares under improved technologies or
management practices as a result of USG assistance
68,925 6,880
4.5.2(5): Number of farmers and others who have applied new
technologies or management practices as a result of USG
assistance
263,762 23,018
4.5.2(7): Number of individuals who have received USG
supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food
security training
684,689 167,950
4.5.2(11): Number of food security private enterprises (for
profit), producers organizations, water users associations,
women's groups, trade and business associations, and
community-based organizations (CBOs) receiving USG
assistance
13,156 914
3Table 5 partially captures FFP programs in the following countries: Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo,
Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Mauritania, Niger, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Not all countries reported on all indicators. 4This does not include the 1.1 million estimated beneficiaries of the Ethiopia Productive Safety Net Program, as the partners for this program
are not reporting on this indicator.
18
FEED THE FUTURE INDICATOR
Title II3
Food for
Progress
McGovern
Dole
4.5.2(12): Number of public-private partnerships formed as a
result of FTF assistance
11
4.5.2(14): Number of vulnerable households benefiting directly
from USG assistance
1,289,106
4.5.2(27): Number of members of producer organizations and
community based organizations receiving USG assistance
88,648
4.5.2(29): Value of Agricultural and Rural Loans $26,723 $12,922,005
4.5.2(30): Number of Medium or Small Market Enterprises (MSMEs), including farmers, receiving USG assistance to access
loans
1
4.5.2(37): Number of MSMEs, including farmers, receiving
business development services from USG assisted sources
20
4.5.2(39): Number of new technologies or management
practices in one of the following phases of development: (Phase
I/II/III)5
23 7
4.5.2(42): Number of private enterprises (for profit), producers
organizations, water users associations, women's groups, trade
and business associations, and CBOs that applied new
technologies or management practices as a result of USG
assistance
466 417
E. Changes in Cargo Preference Reimbursements
The Cargo Preference Act of 1954 requires that at least 50 percent of U.S. international
food aid be shipped on U.S.-flagged carriers. Since 1985, the Maritime Administration of the
Department of Transportation has reimbursed USDA and USAID for the additional costs
associated with shipping food aid commodities on U.S.-flagged ships. The Bipartisan Budget Act
of 2013 eliminated the Maritime Administration’s obligation to reimburse USDA and USAID for
these costs.
Historically, USDA received an average of $6 million in reimbursements for both the
FFPr and McGovern-Dole programs, which USDA used to fund additional food aid programs.
Due to the elimination of reimbursements, USDA will reduce programming in both the
McGovern-Dole and FFPr programs, resulting in an estimated 140,000 fewer recipients per year
under the McGovern-Dole Program and 350,000 recipients per year under the FFPr program.
5Feed the Future Indicator Handbook Definition Sheets provide definition of Phase I/II/III
http://feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/ftf_handbook_indicators_sept2013_2_0.pdf
19
In addition, the Bipartisan Budget Act also eliminated reimbursements to USAID’s Food
for Peace program. In 2013 these reimbursements totaled approximately $58 million; however,
traditionally these reimbursements have averaged about $100 million per year. USAID expects
the loss of reimbursements will prevent USAID from reaching 1.5 - 2.7 million recipients.
F. Trends in Global Food Assistance
According to the 2013 report of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change,
throughout calendar year 2013 global warming and changing weather patterns contributed to
higher levels of food insecurity. This was demonstrated after such devastating events as
Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines and Cyclone Mahasen in Myanmar and Bangladesh.
In response to these large crises and others, in 2013 WFP reached 80.9 million
beneficiaries in 75 countries with direct food assistance. USG contributions made up 34 percent
of WFP’s global budget; the vast majority of USAID Title II and IDA resources were provided
to the agency for emergency responses in Syria and Africa, especially Sudan, South Sudan and
the Sahelian countries.
WFP cash and voucher use increased twenty-fold between 2008 and 2013, and rose
from $207 million in 2012 to $539 million in 2013. In 2013, WFP assisted 7.9 million with cash
and voucher transfers across underdeveloped rural regions, refugee contexts and middle-
income countries.
In Jordan, the use of voucher-based transfers benefited the national economy by
generating approximately $100 million, accounting for 0.3 percent of the GDP in 2013.
Electronic vouchers, or e-vouchers, became more common in 2013, especially following WFP’s
partnership with MasterCard. Used like a debit card, e-vouchers give beneficiaries more
flexibility in their purchasing patterns, allowing them to buy food from designated shops at any
time.
School feeding, resilience building and climate change adaption programming remained
major foci for WFP. By focusing on asset creation, nutrition, safety nets, food assistance for
assets, and strengthened communities and governments in disaster risk management response,
WFP’s reach went far beyond the number of direct beneficiaries and supported sustainable
food systems. The WFP’s Purchase for Progress pilot project increased the productivity and
income of smallholder farmers by purchasing $150 million worth of food locally. WFP also
made strides in mainstreaming gender-sensitive approaches across its programming and
supported capacity development for governments and South-South cooperation as donors,
partners, communities and governments worked together toward eliminating hunger.
20
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
USAID Metric Tonnage FY 2006-2013
USAID Metric Tonnage
For its part, USAID
recently conducted an
analysis of costs for the
years FY 2006 through FY
2013, comparing
commodity value, ocean
freight, inland freight,
Internal Storage Shipping
and Handling and 202(e)
costs. It found that as the
commodity value and
associated costs for
delivering food (total cost)
have gone up, USAID has been able to buy less food. In 2006 the total cost of a ton of food was
$788; in 2013 it was $1,214. As a result, the commodity volumes changed from a high of 2.39
million tons to the FY 2013 total of 1.1 million tons.
G. Cost Per Ration Analysis and Counting Beneficiaries
In FY 2014, USAID plans to release an internal analysis undertaken to compare the costs
of a constructed ration to meet the full food needs of a program beneficiary, under the four
different modalities of emergency food assistance commonly employed by USAID: Title II in-
kind food aid, food vouchers, cash transfers and local and regional procurement. This analysis
was undertaken to better be able to show “apples to apples” comparisons across the various
emergency intervention options and to better ascertain the cost per beneficiary across
programs with different ration sizes, different food types, and different durations of support.
This analysis will compare data exclusively from FY 2012. The results will be shared to
generate discussion as to whether USAID should move to this kind of calculation to more
accurately reflect beneficiaries reached globally and to better and more accurately capture the
costs of the various response options available to it. USAID will expand the analysis to include
data from FY 2013 programs once the data is considered final. It will invite comment from the
Food Aid Consultative Group on any proposed changes to the way beneficiaries are calculated
for reporting purposes.
21
Farmers in USDA’s FFPr program in Liberia installed and
learned how to use solar drying technology to improve their
cocoa product. (ACDI/VOCA)
Gogtboa, a farmer field school sponsored by USDA’s FFPr
program, teaches Liberian producers agronomic techniques
for growing cocoa. (ACDI/VOCA)
III. Regional Highlights
A. Sub-Saharan Africa
USDA Liberia, Revival of Cocoa Production for Small Farmers
Following Liberia’s civil war,
farms lay abandoned and cocoa trees
were infected with black pod disease.
In response, USDA’s FFPr program is
working through ACDI/VOCA to
implement a 3-year (2010–2013) grant
valued at $13.4 million to help
producers in Liberia establish
sustainable cocoa trees and expand
cocoa production and markets.
The project has helped
establish commercial nurseries for
farmers to be able to access high-
yielding hybrid seedlings and high-
quality plants. USDA has also provided
field technical assistance and inputs to save trees from pests and fungi, while bringing cocoa
farms back into production. USDA provided both Farmer Field Schools and ‘Farming as a
Business’ training at producer cooperatives (working in collaboration with the Liberian Ministry
of Agriculture). The training included cocoa processing, drying, grading, and fermentation;
improved warehouse management
practices; and sales and business
management. USDA also provided
equipment to cooperatives that gave
small producers access to solar dryers,
moisture meters, and improved cocoa
storage.
Fifty-eight percent of farmers,
who have been trained with USDA
assistance, are applying improved
Integrated Crop and Pest Management
practices on their farms. Cocoa
grower cooperatives now help
22
producers negotiate among offers from different buyers and select the buyer whose terms are
best.
In 2008, prior to the start of this project, farmers produced a total of 107 MT with total
sales valued at $64,000. By 2013, farmers in the USDA project were producing 725 MT, valued
at $1.2 million and achieved in part by the farmers’ new ability to package cocoa in the bulk
volumes required by higher-paying buyers. Additionally, because practices taught through the
project and adopted by cocoa producers are resulting in the production of a higher-quality
cocoa, farmers have experienced a 278-percent increase in the prices they receive from what
they received in 2008.
USAID Madagascar, Gaining Ground on Nutrition and Resilience Building
USAID and partner Catholic Relief Services-United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops (CRS), along with consortium members Land O’Lakes Adventist Development and
Relief Agency International, Inc. (ADRA) and CARE, will be successfully closing out a
development food assistance program in mid-2014 that has resulted in strong gains in reducing
undernutrition and improving communities’ resilience through natural resource management
and disaster risk reduction activities.
Under this program, the percentage of children 0-59 months of age who were reported
underweight decreased from 29 percent to 20 percent from 2009-2013. The program achieved
these gains in child health due to active involvement of the entire community; the promotion of
a relatively small number of key nutrition and hygiene practices that required few resources and
little risk to adopt; and effective investment in training community health volunteers to reach as
many women and children as possible.
Additionally, the program made strong progress in improving community resilience by
incorporating an environmental focus into all program activities. Called the “Go Green
Strategy”, the program has helped reduce soil erosion, maintain rural farm to market roads,
improve conservation agriculture techniques, and encourage families to consider the
environment in all aspects of their daily life. Highlights include: reforestation or protection of
4,295 hectares of land; construction or improvement of 899 kilometers of roads to connect
communities to markets and increase access to health facilities and schools; and improved
agricultural production by irrigating 9,811 hectares of land. These results and others improved
farmers’ ability to negotiate with traders, and improved the household coping strategy index,
which measures the things that people do when they cannot access food. The index decreased
from 24.9 to 12.6 over the life of the program, indicating fewer households are resorting to
depleting their assets during shocks and lean periods.
Begun in 2009, this 5-year program has worked to reduce food insecurity and
vulnerability of people living in disaster prone areas by improving the health and nutritional
23
VSL Group Record of Shares in Malawi (USAID)
status of children under 5; expanding livelihoods for vulnerable families; and increasing
community resilience to food security shocks through disaster risk reduction. The program has
reached approximately 630,000 people in seven regions of the country. New Food for Peace
development programs in Madagascar will be launched next year to build on the successes of
the past program and further program community resilience and food security.
USAID Malawi, Farmers and Savings Groups Thrive Despite Shocks
As USAID and lead partner CRS close out of program areas in the eight most food
insecure districts of southern Malawi, results are showing significant positive impacts of the 5-
year program. The CRS-led consortium—which included partners such as Total Land Care,
Project Concern International and four others—addressed key factors of chronic food
insecurity, such as poor crop yields and inability to cope with shocks, through conservation
agriculture, agricultural marketing schemes, and disaster risk reduction activities. The program
assisted 226,576 households in the eight districts.
Despite experiencing severe external shocks in 2012/2013 from a 50 percent currency
devaluation, food price increases, fuel shortages, drought and floods, the vast majority of
households in the program areas did not resort to depleting their assets—precisely the kind of
program result sought when aiming to build resilience of vulnerable communities. A recent
evaluation indicates that households’ ability
to better cope with shocks and avoid selling
off assets is due in large part to the positive
impacts of this program. In fact, even in the
face of the 2012/2013 shocks, farmers in
program areas grew enough on their land
to be able to sell pigeon peas to WFP’s
Purchase for Progress program for use in
WFP’s emergency response in other
districts of the country. The program has
helped them increase yields, cope with
climatic changes on their land, and
commercialize their crops, at the same time offering a “home grown” solution to help others in
need of food assistance. According to WFP, just one group of 125 farmers was able to sell
13.8 metric tons of pigeon peas to WFP for its 2012/2013 emergency response.
To leverage and expand these gains in agriculture, the consortium facilitated
establishment of village savings and loan groups (VSLs). At each VSL meeting, all members save
a designated amount, which is then loaned to members of the group at an interest rate of 10 to
20 percent over a period of a month or two. At the end of a savings cycle, the savings of each
member is returned to that member along with a share of the interest earned.
24
Communities have now established over 7,000 groups, with 92,710 members (71 ercent
female). These groups’ cumulative savings have totaled almost $1.8 million. In 2013 almost 68
percent of members took out loans from the VSLs to invest in productivity of their land, e.g. to
purchase of fertilizer, seeds or equipment for their farms, with a high rate of loan repayment by
the end of the year. Significantly, in some VSL groups as much as 15 percent of their
memberships are non-program beneficiaries, so the VSLs are benefiting more than just program
participants.
To ensure sustainability, the program has developed a network of Private Service
Providers (PSPs), who serve as community agents. Each month, every VSL member makes a
small contribution to the PSP in exchange for support on issues such as governance,
management, and economic activity planning, as well as help with the end of cycle “share-out”
of savings and interest that has to be calculated and distributed. While still in the early stages in
2013, these agents are expected to help VSL groups grow and thrive beyond the life of the
program.
USDA Mozambique, Smallholders Key to Poultry Sector Gains
In the early 2000s, Mozambique had a collapsed agriculture sector and suffered
widespread food insecurity. In the livestock and poultry sector, small producers labored with
limited equipment and inputs, and did not have linkages to bulk purchasers who could give them
consistent, fair prices.
Building on a previously
funded project, USDA
funded a 3-year Food for
Progress grant (2010-2013),
valued at $26.34 million and
implemented by
TechnoServe Inc., to boost
the Mozambican poultry
sector and its soy-based
feed supply sector. It
provided a path out of
poverty through steady
employment and increased
incomes for thousands of
small farmers as well as
providing increased food
security for their
households.
Small producers offer competitive pricing for the labor-intensive job of
raising hatchlings till they grow into market-ready broilers. USDA’s FFPr
program helped Mozambican small producers secure contracts with large
firms, which had the equipment and cost advantage in both large-scale egg
hatching at the outset, and in abattoirs for the end stage, of the production
lifecycle. (TechnoServe Inc.)
25
USDA gave small producers $1,000 grants in capital seed money to jump-start their
chicken nurseries, as well as training in care and upkeep of their chickens. More than
2,500 small-scale farmers were trained and began participating in outsourced ‘poultry grower’
operations, leading to two- to tenfold increases in these farmers’ household incomes.
Recognizing the limitations of feed inputs for the poultry sector to thrive and grow,
USDA worked on agronomic and technical assistance to soybean farmers, providing them high
yielding seeds, helping farmers to become seed replicators to supply others, and helping to
increase yields. USDA also developed marketing linkages between organizations of smallholder
chicken growers and feed producers, setting up bulk purchasing agreements.
Expanding the suppliers of poultry feed helped to spawn additional economic growth
and jobs. Soy farmers expanded in number from 2,000 to 30,000. Small and medium sized
entrepreneurs expanded into soybean oil production as a new agro-industry. With these highly
targeted analyses and interventions in appropriate expansions at different stages of production,
USDA has helped to not only expand the production value chain but to create efficiency by
reducing costs of production at each stage. This has improved the competitive pricing of the
domestic poultry product.
The Mozambican industry grew from $25 million in 2005 to $165 million in 2010 and
attracted a further $125 million in related investments. Nearly 9,000 formal sector jobs (in egg
hatcheries, abattoirs, feed mills) were created in a commercially viable value chain. Poultry
processors’ annual revenues have increased to $80 million, from $20 million. Over 90,000 small
holder farmers are now benefiting from increased incomes through poultry production, and this
has increased food security for their households. This has positioned the Mozambican industry
to expand and export, throughout southern Africa and wider.
USDA Senegal, Increasing Agricultural Productivity and New Markets
The Senegalese government is increasing support for the domestic agricultural sector
that largely consists of small holder farmers producing traditional crops such as peanut, maize,
niebe (blackeyed pea), millet, rice, sorghum and fonio (an indigenous cultivated grain). USDA
provided a $7.2-million FFPr grant to Africare to implement a multifaceted food security
project called PRODIAKT (Program to Diversify Agriculture in Kaolack, Kaffrine, Kedougou
and Tambacounda) which ran from May 2009 to September 2013. The project provided
targeted interventions to help small producers increase productivity, gain critical infrastructure
and technical assistance to improve production, develop new markets and secure buyers for
their products.
26
USDA’s project organized the farmers into Community-Based Organizations (CBOs)
and provided the CBOs training in areas such as literacy, writing business plans, bookkeeping,
savings and loans, and value-addition activities including cereal processing.
Eight grain processing units
were put into different villages, and
over 884 people, including 827
women, were trained in processing
and packaging. One CBO, the
women’s cooperative of Ndawi
Kaymor, sold packaged grains and
nuts at multiple fairs and high-profile
marketing events such as the West
African regional FIARA (International
Agriculture and Livestock Fair), and
the pan-African EMRC Agri-Business
forum in Kigali, Rwanda.
As a result of USDA assistance,
Senegalese small producers now
grow and process grains, nuts and
seeds such as millet, maize, sorghum,
fonio, and niebe and package them
for value-added sales in domestic and
export markets. Across the project’s
four regions, the prices for crops
sold by smallholder farmers
increased by 8.7 percent on average.
As a result of gains in productivity,
producers were able to benefit from
revenue increases—57 percent for
maize producers, 32 percent for
millet producers, and 22 percent for
peanut producers.
USDA’s Food for Progress project in Senegal enabled small
women producers to take value-added, processed, and
packaged grains to a West African regional agricultural fair
helping them to gain exposure to potential buyers and traders.
(Africare)
Processing equipment provided by USDA’s FFPr program to
a community based organization (CBO) of small grain
producers in Senegal. Many CBOs are headed by women, and
benefit women-producers specifically. (Africare)
27
USAID Uganda, Linking Farmers to Markets
In FY 2013, USAID responded to
acute and chronic food insecurity in
Uganda with $17.3 million in Title II
emergency and development food
assistance. These programs benefited
almost 570,000 food insecure Ugandans
and refugees from the Democratic
Republic of Congo, Kenya, Rwanda,
Somalia, and South Sudan. Assistance
included direct food aid, as well as
agriculture, health, livelihoods, nutrition,
and water and sanitation interventions.
Emergency assistance through WFP
addressed protracted and acute food and
nutrition insecurity among refugees by
improving food consumption and reducing
malnutrition, while three development
programs significantly improved children’s
nutritional status, increased agricultural
yields and strengthened farmer-to-market
linkages.
USAID and partner Mercy Corps
carried out the final year of a $10.7 million
development food assistance program in
Kitgum and Pader districts of Uganda.
Implemented in the aftermath of years of
armed conflict in Acholiand and violent conflict and drought in the neighboring Karamoja
region, the program led to profound changes for many like Okello George (see box.) It helped
increase access to agricultural inputs for thousands of smallholder farmers and strengthened
farmer-to-market linkages, enabling farmers, input agents, and buyers to expand their networks,
increase their overall profits, and provide the necessary resources to rebuild their lives. For
example, to improve access to quality inputs such as seeds, fertilizer, and agrochemicals, the
program trained 18 input agents who supplied a variety of inputs valued $39,257 to over 3,700
farmers in FY 2013.
To improve market opportunities, the program set up a farming contract scheme in
which farmers were guaranteed markets to sell sesame and white sorghum crops. Mercy Corps
partnered with two agribusiness companies in FY 2013 that enabled over 7,500 farmers to
Okello George Benefits from CKW Trainings
Okello George from Tongrom village in northern Uganda is
a Community Knowledge Worker (CKW). Recruited from
local villages, CKWs receive training using low-end
smartphones to collect and disseminate market information
to help farmers increase their market opportunities. CKWs
also teach farmers effective agricultural skills such as crop
rotation and pest control to minimize agricultural losses. The
program has empowered CKWs such as George to become
small business entrepreneurs and create a self-sustaining
system linking farmers to markets. In FY 2013, 23 CKWs
reached over 4,000 smallholder farmers and earned a total of
over $2,000 in commission.
George used the knowledge he gained to increase his own
dry season yields by applying manure to his maize crop.
“With the proceeds earned from my harvest, I bought two
cows,” he remarked. George planned to continue training
farmers and providing them with information on weather,
agriculture, and markets.
George proudly explained, “I recently linked a six member
farmer group to buyers from a neighboring district.” As a
result, the farmer group sold three tons of millet at once. A
transaction like this used to be not only uncommon but
unbelievable to many farmers. With the profits earned, each
farmer decided to buy a cow for themselves.
To ensure sustainability of the program, the Grameen
Foundation has committed to further development of the
CKWs’ skills, so they can stand on their own two feet as
small business entrepreneurs.
28
produce a total crop value of over $3.5 million, or approximately $240 per farmer. There are
now five agribusiness companies actively engaged in buying sesame from farmers, creating a
more competitive environment.
USAID initiated two new 5-year development programs beginning in FY 2012,
partnering with Mercy Corps and ACDI/VOCA to work in the Karamoja region. The programs
include agriculture, nutrition, health, and governance activities to reduce malnutrition and
improve food security. After supporting ongoing emergency food assistance programs in the
Karamoja region for decades, USAID is transitioning to development efforts in hopes of building
lasting change and reducing the humanitarian caseload. In FY 2013 these development programs
began full scale implementation.
B. Asia and the Pacific
USAID Bangladesh, Empowering Women
USAID development programs are having a strong impact on gender equity and
women’s empowerment, according to recent mid-term evaluations and end of year reporting.
Research shows these are critical components to achieving improved and sustainable food
security results. Programs in the areas of nutrition and agriculture practices are also
dramatically changing the lives of many beneficiaries.
Save the Children Federation (SCF) is prioritizing a more nutritious and diverse diet for
pregnant and lactating women, children between 6 and 24 months and their families. With a
strong emphasis on whole family learning, not just women, the program is proactively engaging
men and is challenging traditional gender roles in the interest of promoting health and nutrition.
Findings from the first 3 years show husbands supporting wives to participate in these activities
and apply the knowledge gained, especially during pregnancy or while breastfeeding. Focus
group participants indicate that husbands are assisting their wives in ways that they did not
before the program, indicating both men and women have been adopting key program
messages. In addition, in the first 3 years of the program, the percentage of people with
improved personal hygiene practices nearly doubled to 63 percent among the more than
120,000 participating households.
Under the CARE program, a unique approach to addressing education and
empowerment issues of poor and underprivileged women and girls has led to shifting attitudes
and a sharp reduction in domestic violence. The approach seeks to uncover the deeper causes
of inequality by analyzing the relationship between women’s groups, village development
committees and leading male members of the community in order to target growth
opportunities for women within their community framework. Empowerment groups and Village
Development Committees are involved in engaging men and boys, including those in positions
29
of power (religious leaders, lawyers, local elites), to increase women’s decision making skills and
support their freedom of movement. Through FY 2013 these groups have been established in
513 of the 1,509 target villages of the program, effectively enrolling 16,485 women and girls.
According to midterm survey results there is strong progress on shifting beliefs and
attitudes on violence against women. Importantly, the work of these groups has helped to
reduce instances of domestic violence, dowry and early marriage. Compared to the start of the
program, the number of women experiencing violence was cut by more than half, decreasing
from 27.7 percent to 12.2 percent.
These programs are all the more notable as they are focused in some of the most
difficult areas of the country where food insecurity and poverty are extremely high and prone
to disasters and other shocks that threaten long-term food security. In FY 2013, USAID
contributed $39.8 million in Title II development food assistance to Bangladesh.
USDA Pakistan, Improving Girls’ Education and Health
After floods in 2010 devastated Pakistan’s fragile water supply, sanitation and education
infrastructure, USDA launched a 3-year (2010–2013) McGovern-Dole program in partnership
with Land O’Lakes to improve girls’ education and health in the Jacobabad district of Sindh
province. Half the female primary schools in the district were closed in 2010 due to poor
attendance by students and teachers. The participation rate of females in primary schools was
alarmingly low at just 36 percent.
In the absence of basic water supply and sanitation, which hampered school attendance,
the USDA-funded program installed hand pumps in 159 schools in the district and set up water
supply connections within Jacobabad city, where there was a municipal water filtration plant. To
provide drinking water, 150 water coolers with 40 liter capacity were set up at 140 schools.
This simple basic infrastructure reduced unhygienic practices and provided convenience and
safety for students.
The project also set up teacher training workshops and worked with local community
leaders to encourage female teachers to attend, overcoming barriers of distance and socially-
imposed travel limitations. Armed with advanced content and teaching techniques, teachers
rekindled the excitement of learning, transferring their skills in the classroom to girls and
encouraging other teachers through onsite training. Over 480 teachers in the Jacobabad district
and 400 teachers in other districts have benefited from the USDA program. Girls attending the
school are receiving better education and have exhibited noticeable shifts in attitude and
behavior. They are now boldly taking part in activities such as debate clubs and competitions,
playing games, and other extracurricular activities.
30
Quality coffee beans ready for delivery (top),
result from coffee-processing and value-adding
activities such as de-hulling (middle) and sorting
on improvised sorting tables (bottom). (CRS)
From 2010 to 2013, enrollment soared by 325 percent, from 12,000 girls to nearly
39,000, far exceeding the target of having 25,000 enrolled. USDA’s partner Land O’Lakes has
worked with the Pakistani regional government to promote education for girls, and government
officials have responded by re-opening 91 schools. Nearly all students (96 percent of those
registered at schools) are attending 80 percent of school days. Literacy rates amongst girls,
which were at 39 percent before the project
began, shot up to 59 percent as reported by the
Sindh Province government in 2012.
USDA Philippines, Smallholder
Production and Processing of Coffee and
Cocoa
A 3-year (2011–2014) FFPr grant is being
implemented by CRS in the western and central
Mindanao region of the Philippines. Valued at
$13.6 million, the project builds on a previous
2009 investment to expand the productivity and
income potential of smallholder producers,
known as the Expanded Small Farmer Marketing
Project. The current project, called FARM, is
improving agricultural productivity and producer
connections to national and global markets for
coffee and cocoa.
USDA helped farmers expand coffee
production by setting up nurseries for diverse
coffee beans including Arabica, Excelsa, and
Robusta and by distributing hardy planting
material to members of local collectives.
Training is also being provided in nursery
management and seedling production for
sustainability.
Smallholder coffee producers on an
individual basis produce insufficient volumes for
the purchasing requirements of large coffee
companies in the domestic market. Filipino
producers lacked the equipment, organization,
and infrastructure to combine their production
into the required bulk volumes to support wider
31
sales. To remedy this situation, USDA funding provided 26 hulling machines, 119 all-weather
driers, three solar driers, two roasting machines with their own kiosk, and five de-pulping
machines. USDA also built four warehouse structures. Over 11,000 farmers were trained in
coffee processing techniques, which enable them to sell directly to high-volume buyers at higher
prices.
This infrastructure has been a boon to small producers, who otherwise would not have
the capital resources to improve their product. With processing and packaging infrastructure,
the producer groups can sell coffee to Nestlé and other international corporations after milling
their own beans. Additionally, Coffee for Peace is working with one group of farmers to certify
their product as ‘organically grown coffee,’ which will open future markets offering premium
prices. The coffee producers are now able to access a variety of buyers and receive on average
28 percent higher prices than they were earning before. Farmers’ revenues have risen on
average by 35 percent. Over 9,232 coffee farmers are benefiting from USDA funding in
Mindanao. Moreover, additional employment is being generated in the areas of coffee nursery
management, seedling production, plant maintenance, sorting and harvesting.
In the cocoa sector, farmers are also benefiting from direct connections to higher-paying
buyers. With USDA assistance, producer groups were trained in cocoa processing, and they are
receiving open-market prices for cocoa by collectively selling to a processing plant. Over 2,500
cocoa farmers are benefiting from this USDA project and report on average 20 percent higher
revenues for cocoa.
C. The Americas
USDA Honduras, Improving Education in the Western Highlands
According to the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the
Caribbean and UNICEF, two-thirds of the children in Honduras are malnourished and lack
access to safe water, sanitation and education. USDA, in partnership with CRS, is implementing
a project valued at $17.7 million to improve the education of school-aged children in the
western highlands. The 3-year project began in 2012. Over 53,000 children, their families and
more than 2,000 teachers and administrators are benefiting from school feeding and activities
to improve children’s health and educational opportunities.
USDA is focusing on early-grade reading and math assessment, while supporting the
testing of children’s abilities and training for teachers and administrators. USDA also produced
tutoring materials for 170 schools for a peer-to-peer tutoring program and provided school
supply kits and supplementary educational material kits (workbooks, aids) for thousands of
students. A successful aspect of the project is motivating and organizing the work of parents
32
and community members to support child education. As a result, 509 community organizations
and 921 community members have been mobilized in the Volunteer Substitute Teacher
Program, which ensures education is provided to the children every day.
USAID Haiti, Reducing Malnutrition
Reduction in malnutrition rates and
improved agricultural yields were key impacts of the
multiple emergency and development food
assistance programs in Haiti in FY 2013. To achieve
these gains, USAID partnered with the WFP, CRS,
CARE International, ACDI/VOCA and World Vision
in FY 2013 to provide almost $40 million of
emergency and development food assistance to the
highly food insecure households affected by Tropical Storm Isaac and Hurricane Sandy. This
assistance helped approximately 295,000 food insecure Haitians in FY 2013.
Significantly, the ACDI/VOCA development program saw medium-term malnutrition,
measured in terms of weight per age, drop by half from almost 20 percent to below 10 percent
from 2008 to 2013. Additionally, compared to 2008 the percentage of women beneficiaries
receiving professional assistance at birth delivery increased from 11.7 to 37 percent, or over
one in three women. Over 85 percent of women beneficiaries made at least three prenatal
visits in FY 2013, a rate that has nearly doubled since 2008. These results reflect the great gains
achieved by this program in increasing access to reproductive health care for many vulnerable
families living in remote areas.
In the same program, over 27,800 individuals received agricultural training in FY 2013 to
improve food security and recover from Hurricane Sandy. The program saw major gains in the
adoption of improved agricultural production practices, with eight of every 10 farmers adopting
four or more of these practices. The program introduced new techniques to help household
food security throughout the year, including distribution of improved beans, a new sorghum
variety, and high-value fruit trees (mangoes, mandarin, coffee). Farmers received training on use
of the new varieties and cropping methods.
ACDI/VOCA also promoted Mutual Solidarity Groups, or savings and loan farmer
groups that improved financial literacy of the population and empowered women within them.
Communities established 22 savings and loan groups that aim to reduce food insecurity and
increase resilience by providing a savings mechanism for all and flexible credit for those who
need it. Together, these groups saved over $26,600 over the life of the program and loaned
over $22,500 to members who paid for their agricultural field operations or established
Haitian Cassava Growers (USAID)
33
microenterprises after Hurricane Sandy. In FY 2013, USAID closed out its three five-year
development food assistance programs implemented by partners ACDI/VOCA, CRS, and
World Vision. In their last year, these development programs facilitated an effective USAID
response to Hurricane Sandy by using their development footprints to conduct rapid
assessments and assure urgently needed food and other supplies were delivered to affected
families. Food for Peace modified the awards to allow for this pivot to emergency response.
In late FY 2013, USAID awarded CARE $80 million to implement a four-year food
security social safety net program. Implemented with sub partners WFP and Action Contre La
Faim, the program directly supports the Government of Haiti to establish a safety-net system to
increase poor households’ access to locally produced food, and prevent malnutrition in children
under two years of age. Title II resources will support the nutrition component, allowing for
the direct, targeted distribution of nutritionally enhanced U.S. food commodities to pregnant
women, lactating women and children between six months and two years to prevent
malnutrition. USAID BFS Community Development Funds are integrated into the same award
and will fund complementary activities that link beneficiaries to social services, such as pre- and
post-natal care, immunization, behavior change and nutrition education. In addition, some
beneficiaries will receive food vouchers to buy locally produced goods, reinforcing the BFS and
Feed the Future value chain work in Haiti.
The program is expected to reach approximately 250,000 households by providing food
vouchers, improving maternal and child health and nutrition knowledge, strengthening links
between households and health systems, and improving the quality of health and nutrition
services. The program will also focus on building the capacity of key government institutions,
women, and local civil society stakeholders to more effectively coordinate, monitor, and
support food security and social assistance programming in Haiti. Building on the development
food assistance programs that closed out in FY 2013, USAID aims to support the Government
of Haiti in its efforts to acquire the tools and capabilities it needs to meet the food needs of its
people and provide the necessary social services. Implementation of this program begins in FY
2014.
34
IV. Farmer to Farmer
The John Ogonowski and Doug Bereuter Farmer to Farmer (F2F) Program was first
authorized by the U.S. Congress in 1985 to provide for the transfer of knowledge and expertise
of U.S. agricultural producers and businesses on a voluntary basis to developing and middle-
income countries and emerging democracies. The F2F program aims to increase agricultural
sector productivity and profitability by providing voluntary technical assistance to farmers, farm
groups, and agribusinesses in developing and transitional countries to promote sustainable
improvements in food processing, production, and marketing.
F2F relies on the expertise of volunteers from U.S. farms, land grant universities,
cooperatives, private agribusinesses, and nonprofit farm organizations to respond to the needs
of host-country farmers and organizations. Many of these volunteers are not overseas
development professionals but rather individuals who have domestic agriculture careers, farms,
and agribusinesses. Some are retired persons who showcase a strong desire to participate in
global development efforts. On average, each volunteer assignment is 20 to 30 days in the host
country.
The FY 2013 F2F Portfolio consisted of seven individual regional Cooperative
Agreements, one Associate Award Cooperative Agreement, and one Indefinite Quantity
Contract Task Order for a Special Programs Support Project. At the country level, F2F
implemented 70 programs in 27 core countries and six small grant activities. Country F2F
Projects are coordinated with and supportive of USAID Mission projects or other local
programs.
During FY 2013, F2F provided 822 volunteer assignments in 48 countries. Volunteers
provided developing country host organizations with technical assistance services at an
estimated value of over $7.4 million. The number of volunteer days completed was 15,790.
With $2.23 million awarded for Special Programs Support Niche Projects, and approximately
$378,000 in program management costs, F2F programmed a total of $10 million.
In FY 2013, implementing agencies fielded volunteers from all 50 states and the District
of Columbia to complete the volunteer assignments. These assignments focused on technology
transfer (56%), organizational development (20%), business/enterprise development (20%),
financial services (2%), and environmental conservation (2%). Volunteers worked at various
levels of the commodity production and marketing chain, including: rural support services and
input supply (43%), on-farm production (39%), marketing (10%), and storage and processing
(9%).
Additionally, F2F core country projects are well aligned and fully integrated, with USAID
Feed the Future and other USG country programs. In 2013, F2F was active in 74 percent of
Feed the Future focus countries and about 38 percent of Feed the Future aligned countries.
35
About 92 percent of the F2F core country projects are either fully integrated or aligned to
USAID Mission programs, and all F2F country projects are at least complementary. See
Appendix K for the list of countries in which F2F worked in FY 2013.
36
V. Appendices
A. Legislative Framework
Since the passage of Public Law 480 (the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of
1954), U.S. international food assistance programs have evolved to address multiple objectives.
Operations of the programs during FY 2013 were guided by the Food for Peace Act of the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. Commonly known the 2008 Farm Bill, the Food
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 restated the objectives that guide U.S. food assistance
programs. These objectives are to:
• Combat world hunger and malnutrition and their causes;
• Promote broad-based, equitable and sustainable development, including agricultural
development;
• Expand international trade;
• Foster and encourage the development of private enterprise and democratic participation in
developing countries; and,
• Prevent conflicts.
U.S. International Food Assistance
The U.S. international food assistance programs were established by several legislative
authorities and are implemented by two federal agencies. USAID administers Titles II, III and V
of the Food for Peace Act. USDA administers Title I of the Food for Peace Act, Section 416(b)
of the Agricultural Act of 1949, Food for Progress, the McGovern-Dole International Food for
Education and Child Nutrition Program. The list below provides a brief description of each
activity.
1. Food for Peace Act.
Title I: Economic Assistance and Food Security—concessional sales of
U.S. agricultural commodities to developing countries and private entities.
Title II: Emergency and Private Assistance Programs—direct donation of
U.S. agricultural commodities for emergency relief and development.
Title III: Food for Development—government-to-government grants of agricultural
commodities tied to policy reform.
37
Title V: John Ogonowski and Doug Bereuter Farmer-to-Farmer Program—
voluntary technical assistance to farmers, farm groups and agribusinesses.
2. Section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949—overseas donations of surplus food
and feed grain owned by the USDA Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).
3. Food for Progress Act of 1985—commodity donations or concessional financing
available to emerging democracies and developing countries committed to the introduction
or expansion of free enterprise in their agricultural economies.
4. McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
Program—donations of U.S. agricultural products, as well as financial and technical
assistance, for school feeding and maternal and child nutrition projects in low-income
countries.
5. Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust—reserve of commodities or funds administered
under the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture. This reserve is available to meet
emergency humanitarian food needs in developing countries, allowing the United States to
respond to unanticipated food crises. The Administrator of USAID oversees the release and
use of these funds.
38
B. List of Abbreviations
BFS Bureau for Food Security
CBO Community-Based Organization
CCC Commodity Credit Corporation
CDF Community Development Funds
CKW Community Knowledge Worker
CSB Corn soy blend
EMOP Emergency Operation
F2F Farmer to Farmer Program
FFP Office of Food for Peace (USAID)
FFPr Food for Progress
FTF Feed the Future
FY Fiscal Year
IDA International Disaster Assistance
IFRP International Food Relief Partnership
JPC Joint Planning Cell
LRP Local and Regional Procurement
MAM Moderate cute malnutrition
MFFAPP Micronutrient-Fortified Food Aid Products Pilot
MT Metric Ton
OFDA Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance
PRRO Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation
PSNP Productive Safety Net Program
PSP Private Service Provider
RUSF Ready-to-Use Supplementary Food
RUTF Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Food
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USG U.S. Government
UN United Nations
VSL Village Savings and Loan
39
C. List of Awardees
The following awardees implemented U.S. Government food assistance programs in FY 2013:
ACDI/VOCA ......................Agriculture Cooperative Development International/Volunteers in
Overseas Cooperative Assistance
ADRA ...................................Adventist Development and Relief Agency International, Inc.
Africare ................................Africare
BRA .......................................Batey Relief Alliance
CARE ....................................Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc.
CHF .......................................Children’s Hunger Fund
CHI ........................................CitiHope International
CNFA ...................................CNFA
CPI .........................................Counterpart International
CRS .......................................Catholic Relief Services-United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
CTS .......................................A Call to Serve
EVM .......................................Evangelistic International Ministries
FHI .........................................Food for the Hungry International
FP ...........................................Food for the Poor, Inc.
GOM .....................................Government of Mauritania
IOM... ....................................International Organization for Migration
IPHD .....................................International Partnership for Human Development
IRT .........................................International Relief Teams
LOLI ......................................Land O’Lakes International
MCI .......................................Mercy Corps International
NCBA ...................................National Cooperative Business Association
NS ..........................................Nascent Solutions, Inc.
OICI ......................................Opportunities Industrialization Centers International
PCI .........................................Project Concern International
REST .....................................Relief Society of Tigray
RPX .......................................The Resource & Policy Exchange
SCF ........................................Save the Children Federation
TS ..........................................TechnoServe, Inc.
UNICEF ................................UNICEF (United Nations)
WCDO ................................World Concern Development Organization
WFP ......................................United Nations World Food Program
WIN ......................................Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development
WVUS ..................................World Vision US
WVI .......................................World Vision, Inc.
40
D. USG Food Assistance Graphs
Wheat/Wheat Products include: Bulgur, Soy-Fortified Bulgur, Wheat Flour, Wheat Flour Bread, Wheat-Soya Blend, Hard Red Winter
Wheat, and Soft White Wheat. Grains and Fortified/Blended Food Products include: Corn-Soya Blend, Corn-Soya Blend Plus,
Cornmeal, Corn, Sorghum, and Soy-Fortified Cornmeal. Pulses include: Beans, Peas, and Lentils. Other includes: Rice and RUTF
Africa 78.93%
East Asia and the Pacific 0.22%
Near East 6.00%
South and Central Asia
11.83%
Western Hemisphere
3.02%
USG Food Assistance
FY 2013
by Region
Wheat/Wheat Products 41.20%
Grains and Fortified/Blended
Food Products 34.95%
Pulses 9.22%
Vegetable Oil 6.60%
Other 8.02%
USG Commodity Mix
FY 2013
41
Africa
65.62% Western
Hemisphere
7.09%
South and
Central Asia
27.29%
USAID Development Food Assistance
FY 2013
by Metric Tons
Africa
78.44%
Western
Hemisphere
1.23%
South and
Central Asia
9.92%
Near East
10.16%
East Asia and
the Pacific
0.25%
USAID Emergency Food Assistance
FY 2013
by Metric Tons
42
Africa
70%
East Asia and
Pacific
24%
South and
Central Asia
6%
USDA Food for Progress Food Assistance
Commodities by Metric Tons, FY 2013
Africa
61% East Asia and
Pacific
13%
South and
Central Asia
3%
Western
Hemisphere
24%
USDA McGovern Dole Food Assistance
Commodities by Metric Tons, FY 2013
43
E. USAID Title II Emergency Activities: Summary Budget, Commodity,
Beneficiaries, and Tonnage—Fiscal Year 2013
COUNTRY AWARDEE COMMODITY BENEFICIARIES
(000s)
METRIC
TONS
TOTAL COST
(000s)
Africa
Angola UNICEF Ready-to-use
therapeutic food 20.2 280 $1,631.1
Burkina Faso
WFP
EMOP
Rice, Vegetable Oil,
Yellow Split Peas 45.2 1,300 $1,744.0
WFP
PRRO -- 781.8 -- --
Burundi
UNICEF Ready-to-use
therapeutic food 17.3 240 $2,134.0
WFP
PRRO
Rice, Vegetable Oil,
Pinto Beans, Cornmeal,
Corn-Soy Blend
26.8 6,150 $10,085.7
Central African
Republic
WFP
PRRO
Rice, Pinto Beans,
Cornmeal, Corn-Soy
Blend, Yellow Split Peas,
Vegetable Oil
243.7 4,220 $8,831.5
Chad WFP
PRRO
Corn-Soy Blend,
Sorghum, Yellow Split
Peas, Vegetable Oil,
Lentils
677.7 38,420 $56,711.5
Congo (DRC)
WFP
EMOP
Pinto Beans, Cornmeal,
Yellow Split Peas 176.9 13,740 $23,007.3
WFP
PRRO
Corn-Soy Blend,
Vegetable Oil, Pinto
Beans, Cornmeal,
Yellow Split Peas
898.9 15,780 $30,864.5
Côte d’Ivoire WFP
EMOP
Yellow Split Peas,
Vegetable Oil, Rice,
Corn-Soy Blend
97.9 8,010 $11,410.5
Djibouti WFP
PRRO
Sorghum, All-Purpose
Flour, Yellow Split Peas,
Wheat-Soy Blend
90.2 3,530 $3,623.3
Ethiopia
CRS
Corn-Soy Blend, Yellow
Split Peas, Vegetable
Oil, Hard Red Winter
Wheat, Bulgur, Rice
673.0 59,830 $47,358.2
WFP
PRRO
Corn-Soy Blend, Yellow
Split Peas, Hard Red
Winter Wheat
890.9 71,770 $63,915.0
WFP
PRRO
Vegetable Oil, Lentils,
Corn-Soy Blend, Hard
Red Winter Wheat
379.3 31,670 $28,878.4
44
COUNTRY AWARDEE COMMODITY BENEFICIARIES
(000s)
METRIC
TONS
TOTAL COST
(000s)
Kenya
WFP
PRRO
All-Purpose Flour,
Yellow Split Peas,
Sorghum, Vegetable Oil
1,427.5 41,150 $45,024.8
WFP
PRRO
All-Purpose Flour,
Yellow Split Peas,
Sorghum, Green Split
Peas
634.7 45,330 $48,284.5
Liberia WFP
EMOP
Corn-Soy Blend, Yellow
Split Peas, Rice,
Vegetable Oil
137.0 2,920 $4,626.4
Malawi
WFP
EMOP
Yellow Split Peas,
Vegetable Oil -- 4,300 $8,191.2
WFP
PRRO Corn-Soy Blend 1,745.5 830 $1,252.0
Mali WFP
EMOP
Rice, Vegetable Oil,
Yellow Split Peas, Corn-
Soy Blend, Bulgur,
Lentils
560.0 8,200 $13,598.8
Mauritania WFP
EMOP
Rice, Vegetable Oil,
Yellow Split Peas, Corn-
Soy Blend, Lentils
65.3 4,550 $6,541.2
Niger
WFP
EMOP
Vegetable Oil, Rice,
Yellow Split Peas, Corn-
Soy Blend
33.4 2,150 $3,264.4
WFP
PRRO
Great Northern Beans,
Bulgur, Vegetable Oil,
Rice, Corn-Soy Blend,
Lentils
773.9 13,850 $20,552.7
Rwanda WFP
PRRO
Vegetable Oil, Rice,
Yellow Split Peas 72.0 3,980 $6,891.8
Somalia
UNICEF Ready-to-use
therapeutic food 10.1 140 $1,853.0
WFP
PRRO
Yellow Corn, Yellow
Peas, Vegetable Oil,
Corn-Soy Blend, Yellow
Split Peas, Sorghum,
Ready-to-use
supplementary food
1,258.8 38,430 $62,898.3
IOM -- -- -- $200.7
South Sudan
UNICEF Ready-to-use
therapeutic food 15.8 220 $1,912.9
WFP
EMOP Lentils, Sorghum 734.3 28,680 $44,815.2
WFP
PRRO
Vegetable Oil, Lentils,
Sorghum -- 58,690 $91,165.1
45
COUNTRY AWARDEE COMMODITY BENEFICIARIES
(000s)
METRIC
TONS
TOTAL COST
(000s)
Sudan
WFP
EMOP
Sorghum, Vegetable Oil,
Yellow Split Peas,
Lentils
-- 88,390 $84,322.3
WFP
EMOP Sorghum 3,293.0 52,410 $58,147.9
Tanzania WFP
PRRO
Cornmeal, Corn-Soy
Blend, Green Peas,
Vegetable Oil
108.3 4,550 $5,550.5
Uganda WFP
PRRO
Cornmeal, Yellow Peas,
Vegetable Oil, Sorghum,
Corn-Soy Blend
300.4 7,990 $11,701.8
Zimbabwe WFP
PRRO
Yellow Peas, Sorghum,
Vegetable Oil 727.8 10,460 $13,859.7
Sub-Total Africa 16,916.6 672,160 $824,850.2
East Asia and Pacific
Philippines WFP
PRRO rice 204.2 2,100 $2467.6
Sub-Total East Asia and Pacific 204.2 2,100 $2,467.6
Near East
Algeria WFP
PRRO
Vegetable Oil, Great
Northern Beans, Rice,
Lentils, Yellow Peas,
Green Split Peas
125.0 5,110 $6,597.6
Gaza WFP
EMOP -- 115.0 -- --
Syria WFP
EMOP
Hard Red Winter
Wheat, Rice Bars,
Wheat Bars
1,105.7 25,560 $23,571.8
Syria (regional
response)
WFP
EMOP Nutributter 171.0 60 $516.1
West Bank WFP
PRRO -- 45.0 -- --
Yemen
UNICEF Ready-to-use
therapeutic food 49.0 680 $3,825.3
WFP
EMOP
Dark Red Kidney
Beans, Soft White
Wheat, Yellow Split
Peas, Hard Red Winter
Wheat, Vegetable Oil
3,123.4 55,640 $46,382.9
Sub-Total Near East 4,734.1 87,050 $80,893.7
46
COUNTRY AWARDEE COMMODITY BENEFICIARIES
(000s)
METRIC
TONS
TOTAL COST
(000s)
South and Central Asia
Afghanistan
UNICEF Ready-to-use
therapeutic food 58.3 810 $5,118.1
WFP
PRRO
Soft White Wheat, Soft
White Winter Wheat,
Vegetable Oil, Yellow
Split Peas, Yellow Peas
963.6 29,440 $41,036.6
Nepal WFP
PRRO
Yellow Split Peas,
Vegetable Oil, Rice 32.4 1,960 $2,093.0
Pakistan
UNICEF Ready-to-use
therapeutic food 95.8 1,330 $7,641.0
WFP
PRRO
Vegetable Oil, Yellow
Split Peas, Wheat-Soy
Blend, Milled Rice
1,137.0 50,070 $62,223.3
Sri Lanka WFP
PRRO Rice, Yellow Split Peas 13.2 1,420 $1,542.0
Sub-Total South and Central Asia 2,300.1 85,030 $119,654.0
Western Hemisphere
Colombia WFP
PRRO
Pinto Beans, Vegetable
Oil, Rice 396.7 3,340 $6,151.9
Haiti
CRS
Soy-Fortified Bulgur,
Vegetable Oil, Wheat-
Soy Blend, Yellow Peas,
Corn-Soy Blend
-- 1,894 $3,676.3
WFP
PRRO
Soy-Fortified Bulgur,
Corn-Soy Blend,
Vegetable Oil, Black
Beans
7.4 3,600 $5,282.7
WVUS
Soy-Fortified Bulgur,
Lentils, Vegetable Oil,
Wheat-Soy Blend
-- 1,696 $2,811.9
Sub-Total Western Hemisphere 404.1 10,530 $17,922.80
WORLDWIDE TOTAL 24,559.1 856,870 $1,045,788.3
Source: Metric tonnage and total cost values derived from actuals in FFP Final Budget Summary Report, April 2014. All costs represent
commodities, freight, and distribution. Awardees listed as approved in cooperative agreements. Commodity types derived from USDA
Procurement Tracker, April 2014. Beneficiary values derived from Annual Results Reports. Beneficiary values reported as zero or low
typically are due to awards made late in the fiscal year and implemented the following year or the late distribution of commodities
carried over from the previous fiscal year that prevented reporting.
Table does not include IFRP awardees. See page 36 for a list of awardees and page 54 for the country list.
Note: USAID tables report on both direct and indirect beneficiaries. USAID defines direct beneficiaries as those who come into direct
contact with the set of interventions (goods or services) provided by the program in each technical area. Individuals who receive training
or benefit from program-supported technical assistance or service provision are considered direct beneficiaries, as are those who
receive a ration or another type of good. Indirect beneficiaries are those who benefit indirectly from the goods and services provided to
the direct beneficiaries. All recipients are beneficiaries, but not all beneficiaries are necessarily food ration recipients.
47
F. USAID Title II Development Activities: Summary Budget, Commodity,
Beneficiaries and Tonnage—Fiscal Year 2013
COUNTRY AWARDEE COMMODITY BENEFICIARIES
(000s)
METRIC
TONS
TOTAL
COST
(000s)
Africa
Burkina Faso
ACDI/VOCA
Corn-soy Blend, Rice,
Vegetable Oil, Yellow
Split Peas
119.3 1,690 $2,089.3
CRS
Corn-soy Blend, Lentils,
Rice, Soy Fortified
Bulgur, Soy Fortified
Cornmeal, Vegetable
Oil
240.3 2,450 $2,538.8
Burundi
CRS
Corn-soy Blend, Hard
Red Winter Wheat,
Vegetable Oil
411.2 6,530 $7,044.3
Chad Africare Soy Fortified Bulgur,
Wheat Flour Bread 305.9 1,000 $1,013.6
Democratic
Republic of
Congo (DRC)
ADRA
Cornmeal, Corn-soy
Blend, Hard Red Winter
Wheat, Vegetable Oil
208.6 1,200 $9,123.4
FHI
Cornmeal, Green Split
Peas, Hard Red Winter
Wheat, Vegetable Oil
186.4 1,500 $9,750.6
MCI
Cornmeal, Corn-soy
Blend, Hard Red Winter
Wheat, Vegetable Oil,
Yellow Split Peas
102.5 2,700 $9,217.7
Ethiopia
CRS
Bulgur, Corn-soy Blend,
Hard Red Winter
Wheat, Rice, Vegetable
Oil, Yellow Split Peas
371.9 16,930 $14,085.2
FHI
Hard Red Winter
Wheat, Vegetable Oil,
Yellow Split Peas
344.2 26,390 $23,465.1
REST
Lentils, Hard Red
Winter Wheat,
Vegetable Oil
1,005.8 52,660 $40,400.3
SCF
Hard Red Winter
Wheat, Vegetable Oil,
Yellow Peas
386.1 15,520 $17,594.9
Liberia
ACDI/VOCA
Bulgur, Corn-soy Blend,
Lentils, Rice, Vegetable
Oil
131.5 530 $7,699.5
OICI Rice, Wheat Flour 9.4 -- $5,390.8
48
COUNTRY AWARDEE COMMODITY BENEFICIARIES
(000s)
METRIC
TONS
TOTAL
COST
(000s)
Madagascar CRS
Corn-soy Blend, Crude
Degummed Vegetable
Oil, Hard Red Winter
Wheat, Rice, Sorghum,
Vegetable Oil
692.8 4,230 $9,398.7
Malawi CRS
Corn-soy Blend, Hard
Red Winter Wheat,
Pinto Beans, Vegetable
Oil
291.6 17,230 $16,520.3
Mali
Africare Soy Fortified Bulgur 23.0 -- --
CRS
Bulgur, Corn-soy Blend,
Green Split Peas,
Vegetable Oil
101.0 -- --
Mauritania CPI
Bulgur, Corn-soy Blend,
Lentils, Soy Fortified
Bulgur, Vegetable Oil
83.4 -- --
Mozambique
ADRA Hard Red Winter
Wheat 115.8 -- --
FHI Hard Red Winter
Wheat 78.4 -- --
SCF Hard Red Winter
Wheat 128.4 -- --
WVUS Hard Red Winter
Wheat 141.5 -- --
Niger
CPI
Corn-soy Blend, Rice,
Soy Fortified Bulgur,
Vegetable Oil
32.3 30 $60.5
MCI Rice, Bulgur 10.3 1,330 $1,631.5
SCF Rice 23.6 2,170 $2,369.3
CRS
Corn-soy Blend, Rice,
Soy Fortified Bulgur,
Vegetable Oil
239.2 2,550 $3,012.0
Sierra Leone ACDI/VOCA
Bulgur, Corn-soy Blend,
Hard Red Winter
Wheat, Lentils, Rice,
Vegetable Oil
276.0 1,960 $9,473.0
South Sudan CRS Sorghum, Vegetable Oil,
Yellow Split Peas 106.7 6,190 $24,136.5
Uganda
ACDI/VOCA
Cornmeal, Corn-soy
Blend, Green Split Peas,
Vegetable Oil
9.1 -- $2,164.2
MCI
Cornmeal, Corn-soy
Blend, Green Split Peas,
Hard Red Winter
Wheat, Vegetable Oil
260.3 -- $3,452.2
49
COUNTRY AWARDEE COMMODITY BENEFICIARIES
(000s)
METRIC
TONS
TOTAL
COST
(000s)
Zimbabwe
CNFA -- -- -- $6,885.6
WVUS -- -- -- $9,315.4
Sub-Total Africa 6,436.5 164,790 $237,832.7
South and Central Asia
Bangladesh
ACDI/VOCA
Lentils, Hard Red Winter
Wheat, Soft White
Wheat, Vegetable Oil
232.4 13,940 $7,924.7
CARE
Soft White Wheat,
Vegetable Oil, Yellow
Split Peas
2,042.1 38,670 $22,662.8
SCF
Hard Red Winter
Wheat, Soft White
Wheat, Vegetable Oil,
Yellow Split Peas
1,858.8 15,930 $9,170.9
Sub-Total South and Central Asia 4,133.3 68,540 $39,758.4
Western Hemisphere
Guatemala
CRS
Corn-soy Blend, Pinto
Beans, Rice, Vegetable
Oil
11.8 1,810 $2,035.2
MCI
Corn-soy Blend, Crude
Degummed Pinto Beans,
Rice, Vegetable Oil
121.1 7,220 $8,147.7
SCF
Corn-soy Blend, Pinto
Beans, Rice, Vegetable
Oil
53.8 1,510 $1,693.4
Haiti
ACDI/VOCA
Corn-soy Blend, Corn-
soy Blend Plus, Lentils,
Soy Fortified Bulgur,
Vegetable Oil, Yellow
Peas
67.4 -- --
CARE
Vegetable Oil, Bulgur,
Black Beans, Corn-Soy
Blend
-- 4,350 $7,632.3
CRS -- 92.3 -- --
WVUS
Lentils, Soy Fortified
Bulgur, Vegetable Oil,
Wheat-Soy Blend,
Corn-Soy Blend
127.9 2,910 $2,729.8
Sub-Total Western Hemisphere 474.3 17,800 $22,238.4
WORLDWIDE TOTAL 11,044.1 251,130 $299,829.50
Source: Metric tonnage and total cost values derived from actuals in FFP Final Budget Summary Report, April 2014. All costs represent
commodities, freight, and distribution. Awardees listed as approved in cooperative agreements. Commodity types derived from USDA
Procurement Tracker, April 2014. Beneficiary values derived from Annual Results Reports. Beneficiary values reported as zero or low
typically are due to either monetization of commodities (thus no recipients), or the late distribution of commodities carried over from
50
the previous fiscal year that prevented reporting.
Table does not include IFRP awardees. See page 36 for a list of awardees and page 54 for the country list.
Note: USAID tables report on both direct and indirect beneficiaries. USAID defines direct beneficiaries as those who come into direct
contact with the set of interventions (goods or services) provided by the program in each technical area. Individuals who receive training
or benefit from program-supported technical assistance or service provision are considered direct beneficiaries, as are those who
receive a ration or another type of good. Indirect beneficiaries are those who benefit indirectly from the goods and services provided to
the direct beneficiaries. All recipients are beneficiaries, but not all beneficiaries are necessarily food ration recipients.
51
G. USDA CCC Funded Food for Progress Grants Fiscal Year 20136
COUNTRY AWARDEE COMMODITY
BENEFICIARIES
(000s)
METRIC
TONS
TOTAL
COST
(000s)
Africa
Burkina Faso CRS
Crude Degummed
Soybean Oil
60,080 11,750 $18.5
Ethiopia ACDI/VOCA Hard Red Winter
Wheat 189,693 40,000
$23.8
Kenya LOLI Hard Red Winter
Wheat 473,580 37,600
$23.1
Liberia ACDI/VOCA
Parboiled, Well
Milled, Long Grain
Rice
60,000 11,900 $13.2
Mauritania Government of
Mauritania Vegetable Oil TBD 2,400
$5.2
Mozambique TS Crude Degummed
Soybean Oil 162,400 8,540
$15.1
Sub-Total Africa 945,753 112,190 $98.9
East Asia and Pacific
Democratic
Republic of
Timor-Leste
NCBA Milled Rice 48,000 10,500 $12.9
Philippines WIN Dehydrated Potatoes
Flakes, Soybean Meal 2,471,248 28,240 $23.3
Sub-Total East Asia and Pacific 2,519,248 38,740 $36.2
Europe and Eurasia
6For the USDA programs mentioned in this report, USDA is reporting only agreements signed in FY 2013.
52
COUNTRY AWARDEE COMMODITY
BENEFICIARIES
(000s)
METRIC
TONS
TOTAL
COST
(000s)
South and Central Asia
Bangladesh LOLI Crude Degummed
Soybean Oil 119,995 9,190 $14.4
Sri Lanka* $0.1
Sub-Total South and Central Asia 119,995 9,190 $14.5
Near East
Western Hemisphere
WORLDWIDE TOTAL 3,584,996 160,120 $149.6
Source: USDA total costs include all FY 2013 obligations for commodity, freight, distribution, and awardee’s administrative expenses
reported as of September 30, 2013. Commodity figures are reported in metric tons. Beneficiaries are reported according to the planned
levels in grant agreements.
*Represents prior year agreements with costs incurred in FY13. Beneficiaries and commodities are reported only in the year that the
agreement was signed.
Note: USDA’s Food for Progress tables report on both direct and indirect beneficiaries. USDA defines direct beneficiaries as those
who come into direct contact with the set of interventions (goods, or services) provided by the program in each technical area or
program activity. Individuals who receive training or benefit from program-supported technical assistance or service provision are
considered direct beneficiaries, as are those who receive a ration or another type of good. Indirect beneficiaries are those who benefit
indirectly from the goods and services provided to the direct beneficiaries (e.g., families of producers).
53
I. McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program
Grants Fiscal Year 20137
COUNTRY AWARDEE COMMODITY BENEFICIARIES
(000s)
METRIC
TONS
TOTAL
COST
(000s)
Africa
Ethiopia WFP Corn Soy Blend,
Vegetable Oil 663,956 13,350 $26.5
Guinea Bissau IPHD ---
--- --- $0.9
Kenya WFP Yellow Split Peas,
Vegetable Oil, Bulgur 1,458,500 19,110 $19.6
Liberia WFP Bulgur, Yellow Split
Peas, Vegetable Oil 595,000 8,670 $20.0
Malawi WFP Corn Soy Blend Plus 1,382,870 10,910 $21.0
Tanzania PCI
Rice, Pinto Beans, Soy-
fortified Vegetable Oil,
Sorghum
466,489 3,100 $17.4
Sub-Total Africa 4,566,815 55,140 105.4
East Asia and Pacific
Cambodia WFP Vegetable Oil, Yellow
Split Peas, Milled Rice 578,136 11,440 20.0
Sub-Total East Asia and Pacific 578,136 11,440 20.0
7 For the USDA programs mentioned in this report, USDA is reporting only on agreements signed in FY 2013. USAID is reporting on all costs
incurred in FY 2013 from new and ongoing emergency and development programs.
54
COUNTRY AWARDEE COMMODITY BENEFICIARIES
(000s)
METRIC
TONS
TOTAL
COST
(000s)
South and Central Asia
Nepal WFP Corn Soy Blend Plus,
Vegetable Oil 274,000 2,820 6.0
Sub-Total South and Central Asia 274,000 2,820 6.0
Western Hemisphere
Nicaragua PCI
Corn Soy Blend, Wheat,
Milled Rice, Red Beans,
Vegetable Oil
491,404 3,710 13.4
Guatemala
PCI
Black Beans, Corn Soy
Blend, Flour, Milled
Rice, Soybean Meal,
Vegetable Oil
245,649 3,440 8.2
CRS
Corn Soy Blend, Milled
Rice, Pinto Beans,
Soybean Meal, Vegetable
Oil, Yellow Corn
155,220 8,970 20.5
Haiti WFP Milled Rice, Black Beans,
Vegetable Oil 500,000 5,320 10.0
Sub-Total Western Hemisphere 1,392,273 21,440 52.1
WORLDWIDE TOTAL 6,811,224 90,840 183.5
Source: USDA total costs include all FY 2013 obligations for commodity, freight, distribution, and awardee’s administrative expenses
reported as of September 30, 2013. Commodity figures are reported in metric tons. Beneficiaries are reported according to the planned
levels in grant agreements.
1Represents prior year agreements with costs incurred in FY13. Beneficiaries and commodities are reported only in the year that the
agreement was signed.
Note: USDA’s McGovern-Dole tables report only on direct beneficiaries. USDA defines direct beneficiaries as those who receive food
rations directly, including direct feeding at schools or take home rations through the life of the program.
55
J. Food for Peace Title II Congressional Mandates—Fiscal Year 2013
MINIMUM SUBMINIMUM MONETIZATION VALUE-
ADDED
BAGGED IN
UNITED
STATES
FY 2013 Target 2,500,000 1,875,000 15.0% 75.0% 50.0%
Final FY 2013
Level 1,320,360 275,797 40.9% 29.2% 100%
Minimum: Total approved metric tons programmed under Title II. Metric ton grain
equivalent used to report against target.
Subminimum:
Metric tons for approved nonemergency programs through Private
Voluntary Organizations and community development organizations and
WFP. Metric ton grain equivalent used to report against target.
Monetization: Percentage of approved Title II programs that are monetization programs.
Value-added: Percentage of approved nonemergency programs that are processed,
fortified, or bagged.
Bagged in
U.S.:
Percentage of approved non-emergency bagged commodities that are whole
grain to be bagged in the United States.
Source: FFP Preliminary Final Budget Summary Report, April 2014.
56
K. Countries with U.S. International Food Assistance Programs —Fiscal Year 2013
Title II
(38 countries)
Angola
Afghanistan*
Algeria*
Bangladesh*
Burkina Faso*
Burundi*
Central African Republic*
Chad*
Colombia*
Cote d’Ivoire*
Democratic Republic of the
Congo*
Djibouti*
Ethiopia*
Guatemala*
Haiti*
Kenya*
Liberia*
Madagascar*
Malawi*
Mali*
Mauritania*
Mozambique*
Nepal*
Niger*
Pakistan*
Philippines
Rwanda*
Sierra Leone*
Somalia*
South Sudan*
Sri Lanka
Sudan*
Syria
Tanzania*
Uganda*
West Bank/Gaza*
Yemen*
Zimbabwe*
Title II-Funded
International Food Relief
Partnership
(21 countries)
Cameroon
Chad
Dominican Republic*
Ethiopia*
Georgia
Guatemala*
Haiti*
Honduras*
Kyrgyzstan*
Malawi*
Nicaragua*
Niger*
Peru*
Senegal*
South Sudan
Sudan
Swaziland
Tajikistan*
Uganda
Uzbekistan*
Zimbabwe
Title V-Farmer-to-
Farmer
(63 countries)
Angola*
Bangladesh*
Barbados
Belarus*
Belize
Bolivia*
Brazil
Burma
Cambodia
Chile
Colombia*
Costa Rica*
Dominica*
Dominican Republic*
Ecuador
Egypt*
El Salvador*
Ethiopia*
Georgia*
Ghana*
Grenada*
Guyana*
Haiti*
Honduras*
India
Indonesia
Jamaica*
Jordan*
Kenya*
Kosovo*
Kyrgyzstan
Lebanon*
Liberia*
Malawi*
Mali*
Mexico
Moldova
Mongolia
Morocco*
Mozambique*
Nepal*
New Caledonia
Nicaragua*
Niger*
Nigeria*
Paraguay
Peru*
Philippines
Rwanda*
Senegal*
South Africa*
St. Kitts & Nevis*
St. Lucia
Tajikistan*
Tanzania*
Thailand
Tunisia
Trinidad & Tobago
Uganda*
Ukraine*
Uzbekistan*
Zambia*
Zimbabwe*
CCC-Funded
Food for Progress
(10 countries funded in
FY 2013)
Afghanistan* Bangladesh
Benin*
Burkina Faso
El Salvador*
Ethiopia
Guatemala*
Honduras*
Jordan*
Kenya
Liberia
Malawi*
Mali*
Mongolia*
Mozambique
Mauritania
Nicaragua*
Pakistan*
Philippines
Sri Lanka
Tanzania*
Timor-Leste Uganda*
McGovern-Dole Food for
Education
(11 countries funded in
FY 2013)
Afghanistan* Cambodia
Cameroon*
Ethiopia
Guatemala
Guinea Bissau
Haiti
Honduras*
Kenya
Laos*
Liberia
Malawi
Mali*
Mozambique*
Nepal
Nicaragua
Republic of Congo*
Sierra Leone*
Tanzania
*Active programs funded in
previous fiscal years.
